Baltic Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators	0 to 200 m	200 to 800 m	more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1)	0.31	0	NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.27	0	NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.12	0	NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.08	NA	NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.73	1	NA
Average PD impact (I-6)	0.01	0	NA
Average L1 impact (I-6)	0.12	0	NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7)	1.00	1	NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7)	0.85	1	NA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat (1000 km²)	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10⁶ euro	Swept area 1000 km²	Average intensity (I-1)	Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2)	Prop. of area fished per year (I-3)	Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Offshore circalittoral mud	21.16	2533	14.80	11.99	34.29	1.62	0.61	0.51	0.22
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	19.52	2978	7.37	6.91	21.03	1.08	0.43	0.27	0.10
Circalittoral sand	33.07	6575	6.31	5.41	16.00	0.48	0.46	0.22	0.08
Infralittoral sand	24.10	3888	3.33	3.08	11.02	0.46	0.55	0.22	0.10
Circalittoral mud	22.81	5812	5.24	4.90	10.86	0.48	0.28	0.19	0.05
Circalittoral mixed sediment	106.88	13585	5.52	3.16	5.95	0.06	0.13	0.03	0.03
Offshore circalittoral sand	2.74	777	1.84	1.63	4.89	1.78	0.75	0.52	0.21
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	53.90	7756	3.76	2.23	4.45	0.08	0.17	0.06	0.03
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	33.81	3095	1.23	0.97	2.76	0.08	0.24	0.06	0.06
Infralittoral mixed sediment	18.77	5590	0.48	0.79	0.86	0.05	0.16	0.03	0.03
Infralittoral mud	1.83	1235	0.30	0.35	0.69	0.37	0.36	0.17	0.05
Infralittoral coarse sediment	6.95	2449	0.28	0.27	0.51	0.07	0.28	0.05	0.06
Circalittoral coarse sediment	12.21	4679	0.41	0.23	0.50	0.04	0.19	0.03	0.04
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	6.84	3334	0.04	0.02	0.05	0.01	0.05	0.01	0.01
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.94	2303	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.01	0.08	0.01	0.01
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	3.88	1497	0.07	0.08	0.02	0.01	0.03	0.01	0.01
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.72	536	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.02	0.14	0.02	0.02
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.18	238	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.02
Unknown	0.17	100	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km², weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	<0.005	<0.005	105.75	0	3.25	5.09	0.02	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0.05	0.01	41.49	0	9.24	0.40	<0.005	0	0	0
Value (10^6 euro)	<0.005	<0.005	39.10	0	2.84	0.57	<0.005	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	2142.54	3.61	0.39	NaN	2.84	0.08	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	85.7	1.48	0.37	NaN	0.87	0.11	0.08	NaN	NaN	NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	34.438	0.437	0.338	NA	3.555	0.151	0.052	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	1.378	0.179	0.318	NA	1.092	0.215	0.081	NA	NA	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	39.745	0.525	0.018	NA	0.055	0.005	0.001	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	1.590	0.215	0.017	NA	0.017	0.007	0.001	NA	NA	NA

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.03	0.47	38.61	100.00	100.00
5	0.03	0.40	54.69	94.51	94.34
10	0.03	0.35	61.78	88.77	88.93
15	0.03	0.30	67.46	82.76	83.54
20	0.02	0.27	71.50	77.16	78.38
30	0.02	0.21	77.97	65.96	68.21
40	0.02	0.16	82.92	56.00	59.06
60	0.01	0.09	90.36	36.96	38.66
80	0.01	0.04	96.09	18.53	18.44
99	0.00	0.00	99.93	1.26	1.17

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.02	0.26	57.33	100.00	100.00
5	0.02	0.22	76.34	94.66	92.97
10	0.02	0.19	80.54	89.96	87.95
15	0.02	0.16	83.28	85.09	82.62
20	0.02	0.14	85.58	80.01	77.63
30	0.01	0.11	88.90	70.24	67.69
40	0.01	0.08	91.66	60.37	57.68
60	0.01	0.04	95.95	40.68	39.09
80	0.00	0.01	98.77	21.04	21.08
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	1.91	2.01

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	0.22	54.00	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	0.19	75.57	93.86	93.66
10	0.01	0.16	80.54	87.80	87.49
15	0.01	0.14	84.06	83.11	82.32
20	0.01	0.12	86.30	77.21	76.26
30	0.01	0.09	90.16	66.99	63.74
40	0.01	0.07	92.88	57.12	53.93
60	0.00	0.04	96.24	38.72	33.75
80	0.00	0.01	98.76	20.27	16.17
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	2.02	1.78

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	0.22	44.53	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	0.19	71.89	88.74	87.45
10	0.01	0.16	78.52	80.13	80.41
15	0.01	0.13	83.25	72.94	72.68
20	0.01	0.11	86.35	66.36	66.86
30	0.00	0.08	90.34	50.24	50.12
40	0.00	0.06	93.16	40.67	39.25
60	0.00	0.03	96.86	23.02	21.24
80	0.00	0.01	99.05	11.00	10.08
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	2.98	1.73

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud	21.16	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	2.6	8.9	18.1	34.0	59.1
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	19.52	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	1.3	9.1	33.9
Circalittoral sand	33.07	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.9	9.2	29.5
Infralittoral sand	24.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.9	4.0	11.5	29.1
Circalittoral mud	22.81	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.3	26.3
Circalittoral mixed sediment	106.88	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5
Offshore circalittoral sand	2.74	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	1.2	4.2	12.2	25.2	46.0	71.6
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	53.9	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.8
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	33.81	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	6.2
Infralittoral mixed sediment	18.77	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.6
Infralittoral mud	1.83	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6	6.2	29.2
Infralittoral coarse sediment	6.95	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.3	10.5
Circalittoral coarse sediment	12.21	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4.1
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	6.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.94	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	3.88	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.72	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.0
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.18	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Unknown	0.17	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud	21.16	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	3.0	10.1	20.8	38.2	62.2
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	19.52	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	1.8	9.2	34.0
Circalittoral sand	33.07	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	0.3	2.4	11.3	32.4
Infralittoral sand	24.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	1.9	9.7	22.2	48.6
Circalittoral mud	22.81	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	3.3	29.4
Circalittoral mixed sediment	106.88	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.8
Offshore circalittoral sand	2.74	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	1.5	5.3	14.6	27.3	47.1	71.4
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	53.9	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4.5
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	33.81	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	1.3	9.4
Infralittoral mixed sediment	18.77	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.2
Infralittoral mud	1.83	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.7	6.7	32.9
Infralittoral coarse sediment	6.95	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	2.4	14.8
Circalittoral coarse sediment	12.21	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	6.6
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	6.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.94	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	3.88	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.72	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5.9
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.18	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Unknown	0.17	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud	21.16	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	3.2	10.0	19.8	35.6	60.4
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	19.52	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	3.4	11.0	36.6
Circalittoral sand	33.07	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	0.5	2.9	11.6	35.2
Infralittoral sand	24.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	2.2	11.1	22.4	49.1
Circalittoral mud	22.81	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	6.0	32.8
Circalittoral mixed sediment	106.88	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.1
Offshore circalittoral sand	2.74	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.9	5.7	13.9	25.7	46.7	70.8
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	53.9	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5.3
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	33.81	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	5.0	25.4
Infralittoral mixed sediment	18.77	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.5
Infralittoral mud	1.83	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.7	7.9	34.6
Infralittoral coarse sediment	6.95	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	2.2	13.6
Circalittoral coarse sediment	12.21	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	5.9
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	6.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.94	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	3.88	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.72	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	20.5
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.18	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Unknown	0.17	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Bothnian area

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators	0 to 200 m	200 to 800 m	more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1)	0.01	0	NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.06	0	NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.01	0	NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.01	NA	NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.94	1	NA
Average PD impact (I-6)	0.00	0	NA
Average L1 impact (I-6)	0.01	0	NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7)	1.00	1	NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7)	0.99	1	NA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat (1000 km²)	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10⁶ euro	Swept area 1000 km²	Average intensity (I-1)	Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2)	Prop. of area fished per year (I-3)	Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	28.13	4021	1.56	1.27	0.59	0.02	0.10	0.02	0.02
Circalittoral mixed sediment	56.01	6685	0.54	0.80	0.24	0.00	0.05	0.00	0.02
Infralittoral mixed sediment	4.84	2076	0.11	0.43	0.07	0.01	0.04	0.01	0.01
Circalittoral mud	3.22	2103	0.13	0.20	0.06	0.02	0.10	0.02	0.02
Circalittoral sand	7.34	2018	0.05	0.18	0.04	0.01	0.03	0.01	0.01
Circalittoral coarse sediment	3.26	2005	0.05	0.03	0.02	0.01	0.06	0.00	0.02
Infralittoral sand	0.84	469	0.02	0.08	0.01	0.02	0.04	0.01	0.02
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.48	596	0.02	0.08	0.01	0.02	0.07	0.02	0.03
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.52	411	0.01	0.03	0.00	0.01	0.06	0.01	0.02
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.90	1348	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.01
Infralittoral mud	0.10	278	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.02
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.31	940	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	0.01	11	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.14	0.00	0.18
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.07	21	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.05	0.00	0.10
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.00	3	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.03	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.00	5	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.00	3	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.00	4	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km², weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0	0	0.46	0	0.65	0	0	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0	0	0.67	0	1.92	0	0	0	0	0
Value (10^6 euro)	0	0	2.68	0	0.85	0	0	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	NaN	1.45	NaN	2.95	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	NaN	5.76	NaN	1.31	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	NA	NA	0.809	NA	3.340	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	NA	NA	3.219	NA	1.484	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	NA	NA	0.021	NA	0.063	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	NA	NA	0.082	NA	0.028	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	90.19	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	96.11	94.88	94.64
10	0.01	97.25	88.87	89.70
15	0.01	97.90	81.91	85.02
20	0.01	98.26	75.95	81.37
30	0.01	98.78	60.05	72.20
40	0.01	99.15	51.86	63.87
60	0.00	99.55	29.75	43.70
80	0.00	99.81	18.91	23.75
99	0.00	100.00	3.46	6.07

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	95.20	100.00	100.00
5	97.80	97.93	94.73
10	98.68	93.60	87.42
15	99.11	90.79	82.66
20	99.27	86.20	78.64
30	99.49	72.53	69.67
40	99.63	64.92	61.25
60	99.83	42.15	40.21
80	99.93	21.44	22.57
99	100.00	8.37	2.88

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	96.33	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	98.16	95.54	95.36
10	0.01	98.40	91.17	91.21
15	0.01	98.63	84.70	85.65
20	0.01	98.81	78.32	79.25
30	0.01	99.12	70.79	70.92
40	0.01	99.28	62.34	62.39
60	0.00	99.69	44.66	45.32
80	0.00	99.92	16.70	17.08
99	0.00	100.00	8.78	9.04

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	90.44	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	95.41	97.49	94.42
10	0.01	96.61	95.18	88.87
15	0.01	97.47	93.69	84.21
20	0.01	97.83	91.27	79.86
30	0.01	98.18	85.76	67.05
40	0.01	99.01	81.48	57.02
60	0.00	99.60	60.00	37.26
80	0.00	99.84	44.52	15.70
99	0.00	100.00	9.38	3.82

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	28.13	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment	56.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	4.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mud	3.22	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral sand	7.34	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	3.26	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral sand	0.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.48	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.52	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.9	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.31	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	0.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	11.4
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.07	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral sand	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	28.13	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment	56.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	4.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mud	3.22	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral sand	7.34	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	3.26	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral sand	0.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.48	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.52	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.9	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.31	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	0.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4.4
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.07	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral sand	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	28.13	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment	56.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	4.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mud	3.22	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral sand	7.34	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	3.26	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral sand	0.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.48	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.52	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.9	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.31	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	0.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7.3
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.07	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral mud	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral sand	0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Gulf of Finland

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators	0 to 200 m	200 to 800 m	more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1)	0.00	NA	NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.01	NA	NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.00	NA	NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.01	NA	NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.99	NA	NA
Average PD impact (I-6)	0.00	NA	NA
Average L1 impact (I-6)	0.00	NA	NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7)	1.00	NA	NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7)	1.00	NA	NA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat (1000 km²)	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2)	Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Circalittoral mud	3.10	793	0.01	0.02	0
Circalittoral mixed sediment	5.99	1326	0.00	0.01	0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.69	572	0.00	0.01	0
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	6.29	1166	0.00	0.00	0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.93	792	0.00	0.00	0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.10	815	0.00	0.00	0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	1.26	559	0.00	0.00	NA
Circalittoral sand	2.06	606	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.26	279	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral mud	0.10	218	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.61	499	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral sand	0.73	368	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.13	71	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.88	271	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral mud	3.06	370	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	0.90	182	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.06	71	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.36	118	0.00	0.00	NA
Unknown	0.17	100	0.00	0.00	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km², weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0	0	0	0	<0.005	0	0	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0	0	0	0	0.01	0	0	0	0	0
Value (10^6 euro)	0	0	0	0	<0.005	0	0	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	11.38	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	2.28	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	NA	NA	NA	NA	2.080	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	NA	NA	NA	NA	0.417	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	NA	NA	NA	NA	1.771	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	NA	NA	NA	NA	0.355	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	98.25	100.00	100.00
5	98.80	93.86	93.69
10	99.17	90.22	90.22
15	99.17	90.22	90.22
20	99.53	86.88	87.04
30	100.00	71.30	70.65
40	100.00	71.30	70.65
60	100.00	71.30	70.65
80	100.00	71.30	70.65
99	100.00	71.30	70.65

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	99.07	100.00	100.00
5	99.18	100.00	100.00
10	99.25	94.55	94.80
15	99.25	94.55	94.80
20	99.27	82.86	82.50
30	99.43	72.13	71.87
40	99.43	72.13	71.87
60	99.84	47.88	46.84
80	100.00	27.19	26.63
99	100.00	27.19	26.63

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	98.91	100.0	100.00
5	99.32	100.0	100.00
10	99.32	100.0	100.00
15	99.32	100.0	100.00
20	99.32	100.0	100.00
30	100.00	86.1	85.93
40	100.00	86.1	85.93
60	100.00	86.1	85.93
80	100.00	86.1	85.93
99	100.00	86.1	85.93

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	99.93	100	100
5	100.00	100	100
10	100.00	100	100
15	100.00	100	100
20	100.00	100	100
30	100.00	100	100
40	100.00	100	100
60	100.00	100	100
80	100.00	100	100
99	100.00	100	100

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Circalittoral mud	3.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment	5.99	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.69	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	6.29	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.93	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	1.26	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral sand	2.06	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.26	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral mud	0.1	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.61	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral sand	0.73	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.13	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.88	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud	3.06	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	0.9	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.06	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.36	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Unknown	0.17	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Circalittoral mud	3.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment	5.99	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.69	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	6.29	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.93	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	1.26	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral sand	2.06	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.26	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral mud	0.1	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.61	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral sand	0.73	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.13	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.88	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud	3.06	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	0.9	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.06	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.36	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Unknown	0.17	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Circalittoral mud	3.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mixed sediment	5.99	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.69	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	6.29	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.93	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	1.26	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral sand	2.06	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.26	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral mud	0.1	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.61	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral sand	0.73	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.13	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.88	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud	3.06	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	0.9	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.06	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.36	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Unknown	0.17	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Gulf of Riga

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators	0 to 200 m	200 to 800 m	more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1)	0	NA	NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0	NA	NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0	NA	NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0	NA	NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	1	NA	NA
Average PD impact (I-6)	0	NA	NA
Average L1 impact (I-6)	0	NA	NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7)	1	NA	NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7)	1	NA	NA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat (1000 km²)	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2)	Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Circalittoral mixed sediment	5.45	542	0.00	0.00	0.00
Infralittoral mixed sediment	1.43	217	0.00	0.01	0.00
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.84	120	0.05	0.04	0.02
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.48	111	0.00	0.00	NA
Circalittoral mud	5.16	506	0.00	0.00	NA
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	1.99	294	0.00	0.00	NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	32	0.00	0.00	NA
Circalittoral sand	1.30	279	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.53	136	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral mud	0.01	7	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	16	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral sand	0.70	142	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.00	1	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.01	2	0.00	0.00	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km², weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	<0.005	0	<0.005	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0.05	0	<0.005	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Value (10^6 euro)	<0.005	0	<0.005	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	2142.54	NaN	0.01	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	85.7	NaN	<0.005	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	34.438	NA	0.003	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	1.378	NA	0.001	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	39.745	NA	0.002	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	1.590	NA	0.001	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	99.85	100	100
5	100.00	100	100
10	100.00	100	100
15	100.00	100	100
20	100.00	100	100
30	100.00	100	100
40	100.00	100	100
60	100.00	100	100
80	100.00	100	100
99	100.00	100	100

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	99.43	100	100
5	100.00	100	100
10	100.00	100	100
15	100.00	100	100
20	100.00	100	100
30	100.00	100	100
40	100.00	100	100
60	100.00	100	100
80	100.00	100	100
99	100.00	100	100

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	96.15	100.00	100.00
5	98.07	100.00	100.00
10	98.07	100.00	100.00
15	98.07	100.00	100.00
20	98.07	100.00	100.00
30	98.07	100.00	100.00
40	98.07	100.00	100.00
60	100.00	49.64	49.64
80	100.00	49.64	49.64
99	100.00	49.64	49.64

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0	0	100	NA	NA
5	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
10	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
15	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
20	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
30	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
40	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
60	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
80	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
99	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Circalittoral mixed sediment	5.45	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	1.43	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.48	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral mud	5.16	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	1.99	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral sand	1.3	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.53	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral mud	0.01	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral sand	0.7	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.01	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Circalittoral mixed sediment	5.45	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	1.43	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.48	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral mud	5.16	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	1.99	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral sand	1.3	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.53	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral mud	0.01	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral sand	0.7	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.01	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Circalittoral mixed sediment	5.45	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	1.43	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.84	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.48	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral mud	5.16	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	1.99	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Circalittoral sand	1.3	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.53	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral mud	0.01	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral sand	0.7	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.01	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Baltic Proper

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators	0 to 200 m	200 to 800 m	more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1)	0.26	0	NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.26	0	NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.10	0	NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.07	NA	NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.74	1	NA
Average PD impact (I-6)	0.00	0	NA
Average L1 impact (I-6)	0.09	0	NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7)	1.00	1	NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7)	0.88	1	NA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat (1000 km²)	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10⁶ euro	Swept area 1000 km²	Average intensity (I-1)	Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2)	Prop. of area fished per year (I-3)	Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	15.31	2121	3.93	4.02	12.17	0.79	0.33	0.21	0.08
Offshore circalittoral mud	8.43	1278	2.76	2.95	8.59	1.02	0.40	0.30	0.11
Circalittoral sand	11.76	1880	2.09	1.24	4.14	0.35	0.49	0.17	0.08
Circalittoral mud	7.50	1621	1.82	1.37	3.68	0.49	0.34	0.20	0.06
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	16.26	2086	1.56	0.58	2.83	0.17	0.32	0.13	0.07
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	31.52	2735	0.95	0.75	2.01	0.06	0.21	0.05	0.05
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.70	196	0.43	0.49	1.39	1.98	0.61	0.41	0.16
Circalittoral mixed sediment	28.96	3585	2.32	0.66	1.11	0.04	0.17	0.02	0.03
Circalittoral coarse sediment	5.86	1391	0.24	0.06	0.16	0.03	0.22	0.02	0.06
Infralittoral sand	2.28	729	0.05	0.03	0.15	0.06	0.21	0.06	0.04
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.73	1068	0.03	0.01	0.03	0.01	0.07	0.01	0.02
Infralittoral coarse sediment	2.21	756	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.08	0.01	0.02
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	1.95	269	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.02
Infralittoral mixed sediment	5.42	1213	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.01
Infralittoral mud	0.17	278	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.04	0.01	0.01
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.36	617	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.01
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.56	416	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.14	0.00	0.03
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.12	156	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km², weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0	<0.005	35.17	0	1.14	0	0	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0	0.01	11.78	0	4.44	0	0	0	0	0
Value (10^6 euro)	0	<0.005	11.21	0	0.98	0	0	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	6.94	0.33	NaN	3.91	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	2.06	0.32	NaN	0.86	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	NA	1.223	0.319	NA	4.730	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	NA	0.363	0.303	NA	1.043	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	NA	1.806	0.017	NA	0.082	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	NA	0.536	0.016	NA	0.018	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	0.20	66.75	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	0.18	81.66	94.47	91.82
10	0.01	0.15	84.24	89.20	86.57
15	0.01	0.14	85.94	84.49	81.80
20	0.01	0.12	87.72	79.09	76.53
30	0.01	0.10	90.16	68.76	66.42
40	0.01	0.08	92.33	59.23	57.08
60	0.01	0.05	95.57	39.19	37.99
80	0.00	0.02	98.15	19.41	18.88
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	1.38	1.28

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.02	0.26	60.27	100.00	100.00
5	0.02	0.23	72.93	93.89	92.10
10	0.02	0.20	77.97	88.64	86.83
15	0.02	0.18	81.36	83.07	81.24
20	0.01	0.15	83.93	77.94	76.17
30	0.01	0.12	87.67	67.08	65.92
40	0.01	0.09	90.52	56.50	55.66
60	0.01	0.05	94.70	36.94	36.62
80	0.00	0.02	97.85	19.46	19.14
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	2.12	1.99

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	0.17	50.99	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	0.15	77.34	95.77	94.29
10	0.01	0.13	82.40	91.55	89.23
15	0.01	0.11	85.91	86.89	83.22
20	0.00	0.09	88.52	82.27	76.58
30	0.00	0.07	92.21	71.29	61.60
40	0.00	0.05	94.85	62.27	48.77
60	0.00	0.02	97.98	45.52	27.96
80	0.00	0.01	99.41	26.18	15.82
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	8.80	5.42

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	0.19	66.39	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	0.16	80.95	93.43	86.99
10	0.01	0.15	83.19	88.06	79.52
15	0.01	0.13	85.70	82.88	72.30
20	0.01	0.12	87.16	78.52	69.09
30	0.01	0.09	90.37	68.44	61.16
40	0.00	0.07	92.45	58.59	46.59
60	0.00	0.04	95.95	37.70	28.25
80	0.00	0.02	98.38	20.27	15.73
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	4.53	3.67

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	15.31	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	3.0	29.8
Offshore circalittoral mud	8.43	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.0	12.7	38.7
Circalittoral sand	11.76	0.0	0.0	0.4	1.7	7.4	24.0
Circalittoral mud	7.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	3.9	29.8
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	16.26	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	1.9	22.4
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	31.52	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	2.9
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.7	<0.1	0.3	1.5	16.2	45.9	74.4
Circalittoral mixed sediment	28.96	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.9
Circalittoral coarse sediment	5.86	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.7	6.8
Infralittoral sand	2.28	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	10.4
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.73	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment	2.21	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	1.95	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	5.42	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud	0.17	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.36	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.56	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	24.1
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.12	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	15.31	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	3.5	31.2
Offshore circalittoral mud	8.43	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.9	14.5	42.6
Circalittoral sand	11.76	0.0	<0.1	0.4	1.4	6.7	21.8
Circalittoral mud	7.5	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	0.3	5.6	31.6
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	16.26	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	4.9	31.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	31.52	0.0	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	0.3	7.4
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.7	<0.1	0.7	1.6	16.7	46.1	73.1
Circalittoral mixed sediment	28.96	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.2
Circalittoral coarse sediment	5.86	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	1.1	9.2
Infralittoral sand	2.28	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	16.5
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.73	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment	2.21	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.4	0.4
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	1.95	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	5.42	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud	0.17	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.36	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.56	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	52.8
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.12	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	15.31	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	6.2	33.6
Offshore circalittoral mud	8.43	0.0	0.0	0.0	5.8	16.4	43.4
Circalittoral sand	11.76	0.0	<0.1	0.7	1.8	8.5	29.1
Circalittoral mud	7.5	0.0	<0.1	<0.1	0.7	12.0	38.8
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	16.26	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.8	7.3	33.3
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	31.52	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.2	1.5	28.1
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.7	0.2	1.7	2.8	18.1	47.3	74.1
Circalittoral mixed sediment	28.96	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.1
Circalittoral coarse sediment	5.86	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	1.1	8.1
Infralittoral sand	2.28	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	26.3
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.73	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment	2.21	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	1.95	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	5.42	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral mud	0.17	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.36	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.56	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	55.1
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.12	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Arkona & Bornholm Basin

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators	0 to 200 m	200 to 800 m	more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1)	1.10	NA	NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.78	NA	NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.42	NA	NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.31	NA	NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.22	NA	NA
Average PD impact (I-6)	0.02	NA	NA
Average L1 impact (I-6)	0.41	NA	NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7)	0.99	NA	NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7)	0.46	NA	NA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat (1000 km²)	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10⁶ euro	Swept area 1000 km²	Average intensity (I-1)	Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2)	Prop. of area fished per year (I-3)	Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Offshore circalittoral mud	9.44	810	11.87	8.83	25.07	2.66	1.00	0.86	0.49
Circalittoral sand	8.57	1242	2.91	2.48	8.83	1.03	0.90	0.47	0.23
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	3.20	484	3.44	2.87	8.82	2.75	1.00	0.63	0.28
Infralittoral sand	11.86	1190	1.98	1.41	6.72	0.57	0.74	0.30	0.19
Circalittoral mixed sediment	10.03	1143	2.50	1.50	4.24	0.42	0.59	0.22	0.18
Circalittoral mud	1.99	479	1.46	1.23	3.27	1.64	0.98	0.67	0.32
Offshore circalittoral sand	1.47	314	1.31	1.01	3.22	2.20	0.98	0.71	0.38
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	1.23	189	0.65	0.38	1.03	0.84	0.92	0.50	0.33
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	1.38	167	0.28	0.22	0.75	0.55	1.00	0.26	0.36
Infralittoral coarse sediment	2.69	627	0.12	0.08	0.23	0.09	0.46	0.07	0.12
Circalittoral coarse sediment	1.30	519	0.06	0.06	0.21	0.16	0.60	0.11	0.11
Infralittoral mixed sediment	2.95	621	0.15	0.08	0.18	0.06	0.42	0.06	0.12
Infralittoral mud	0.24	93	0.03	0.03	0.16	0.69	0.71	0.40	0.17
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.49	147	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.07	0.58	0.07	0.09
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	66	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.42	0.84	0.37	0.08
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.02	30	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.58	0.97	0.41	0.30
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.00	3	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.22	1.00	0.22	NA
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0.00	13	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km², weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0	<0.005	59.14	0	1.40	2.26	0.02	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0	<0.005	24.07	0	2.60	0.14	<0.005	0	0	0
Value (10^6 euro)	0	<0.005	19.09	0	0.92	0.21	<0.005	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	0.79	0.41	NaN	1.86	0.06	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	0.78	0.32	NaN	0.66	0.09	0.08	NaN	NaN	NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	NA	0.125	0.355	NA	2.702	0.125	0.053	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	NA	0.123	0.281	NA	0.956	0.179	0.082	NA	NA	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	NA	0.158	0.019	NA	0.033	0.003	0.001	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	NA	0.155	0.015	NA	0.012	0.005	0.001	NA	NA	NA

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.05	0.79	0.02	100.00	100.00
5	0.05	0.68	23.85	94.68	94.69
10	0.05	0.59	35.56	88.68	89.06
15	0.04	0.51	45.16	82.67	83.97
20	0.04	0.45	52.00	76.70	78.61
30	0.04	0.35	62.95	65.55	68.52
40	0.03	0.27	71.32	55.73	59.37
60	0.02	0.15	83.66	37.12	39.40
80	0.01	0.06	93.37	18.47	18.70
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.91	0.77

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.02	0.49	10.16	100.00	100.00
5	0.02	0.43	48.23	94.19	93.87
10	0.02	0.37	58.04	89.06	88.90
15	0.02	0.32	64.82	83.75	83.79
20	0.02	0.28	69.80	77.70	78.39
30	0.01	0.22	77.59	67.34	68.14
40	0.01	0.16	83.57	54.92	56.87
60	0.01	0.10	90.36	35.89	36.94
80	0.00	0.04	96.05	17.04	17.21
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	1.12	0.71

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.05	0.62	0.25	100.00	100.00
5	0.05	0.49	42.94	94.86	94.49
10	0.05	0.39	57.59	90.32	89.98
15	0.04	0.32	65.85	86.01	85.37
20	0.04	0.27	71.71	81.34	80.07
30	0.04	0.19	80.81	71.86	69.91
40	0.03	0.13	86.97	62.87	59.42
60	0.02	0.06	94.10	44.62	40.29
80	0.01	0.03	97.79	22.53	20.65
99	0.00	0.01	100.00	4.59	4.29

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	0.29	25.90	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	0.25	61.00	87.30	86.81
10	0.01	0.22	69.99	80.10	80.49
15	0.01	0.19	76.53	72.95	73.58
20	0.01	0.16	81.08	66.89	68.61
30	0.01	0.12	86.25	53.86	53.08
40	0.01	0.09	90.04	43.37	42.05
60	0.00	0.05	95.19	25.40	24.39
80	0.00	0.02	98.32	12.04	12.72
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	2.05	2.99

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud	9.44	0.3	0.9	3.5	7.8	12.3	18.6	27.3	38.4	53.4	73.1
Circalittoral sand	8.57	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.8	2.6	5.8	11.3	20.5	33.7	58.5
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	3.2	0.1	0.4	1.5	2.8	4.4	7.1	11.0	19.0	28.6	46.6
Infralittoral sand	11.86	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.4	1.7	4.6	10.1	18.9	40.2
Circalittoral mixed sediment	10.03	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.1	5.0	14.6	32.4
Circalittoral mud	1.99	<0.1	0.4	2.4	5.0	10.4	16.2	23.8	34.8	48.5	68.8
Offshore circalittoral sand	1.47	<0.1	0.3	1.4	3.6	8.0	18.0	27.1	40.5	56.7	78.4
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	1.23	0.0	<0.1	0.6	1.7	5.5	11.8	18.4	27.9	41.4	61.1
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	1.38	0.2	0.4	1.7	2.9	4.8	8.1	11.5	16.4	22.0	31.9
Infralittoral coarse sediment	2.69	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6	2.0	5.3	19.2
Circalittoral coarse sediment	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.8	2.0	3.7	8.6	22.0
Infralittoral mixed sediment	2.95	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	2.0	6.6	23.8
Infralittoral mud	0.24	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	1.1	4.1	11.5	18.2	51.3	79.0
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.49	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.5	2.7	4.4	7.1	13.9
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.8	1.7	19.6	33.3	62.0	62.0	100.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.02	0.1	0.4	0.9	1.8	4.7	13.9	25.1	31.6	70.7	100.0
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	0.2	11.7	11.7	11.7	11.7	11.7	11.7	100.0	100.0	100.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud	9.44	0.4	1.0	3.7	8.7	14.3	21.6	31.8	42.8	56.6	75.2
Circalittoral sand	8.57	0.0	0.0	0.3	1.3	3.4	6.7	12.3	22.9	36.5	63.0
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	3.2	0.2	0.5	1.7	2.9	4.6	7.1	10.5	17.9	26.9	43.2
Infralittoral sand	11.86	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.1	5.2	12.2	20.1	31.5	57.1
Circalittoral mixed sediment	10.03	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	1.1	5.5	17.0	37.9
Circalittoral mud	1.99	0.1	0.8	3.2	6.2	12.3	19.0	27.6	38.4	55.9	74.0
Offshore circalittoral sand	1.47	<0.1	0.5	1.8	4.5	9.8	20.6	29.6	42.7	58.1	78.3
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	1.23	0.0	<0.1	0.7	2.4	7.7	14.9	20.3	33.0	50.4	69.4
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	1.38	0.3	0.6	2.2	3.4	5.3	8.9	12.7	18.0	24.2	34.4
Infralittoral coarse sediment	2.69	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	3.3	8.1	24.5
Circalittoral coarse sediment	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.2	3.1	5.3	12.0	28.6
Infralittoral mixed sediment	2.95	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	1.7	5.6	21.6
Infralittoral mud	0.24	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	4.5	13.6	25.8	38.1	70.1	89.9
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.49	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.0	2.9	4.4	9.9	18.1
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	0.0	0.0	<0.1	1.1	2.1	24.9	36.0	67.4	67.4	100.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.02	<0.1	0.4	0.7	1.8	4.8	13.0	25.2	34.3	72.6	100.0
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	0.0	3.7	3.7	3.7	3.7	3.7	3.7	100.0	100.0	100.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Offshore circalittoral mud	9.44	0.4	1.1	3.8	8.5	13.4	19.9	28.9	39.1	53.3	74.2
Circalittoral sand	8.57	0.0	0.0	0.4	1.6	3.8	7.0	12.4	22.1	35.6	61.9
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	3.2	0.3	0.6	2.1	3.3	4.9	7.5	10.9	19.0	28.9	47.9
Infralittoral sand	11.86	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.0	5.9	12.8	19.7	30.1	58.3
Circalittoral mixed sediment	10.03	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.8	5.1	17.1	40.3
Circalittoral mud	1.99	0.2	1.2	4.6	8.7	15.4	21.1	28.5	37.5	53.0	70.2
Offshore circalittoral sand	1.47	0.1	0.8	1.8	3.9	8.4	17.9	26.1	38.4	54.3	75.2
Circalittoral mud or Circalittoral sand	1.23	0.0	<0.1	0.9	2.7	9.0	16.4	19.8	34.0	54.2	73.0
Offshore circalittoral mud or Offshore circalittoral sand	1.38	0.4	0.9	2.9	4.2	6.2	10.1	14.3	19.6	25.8	35.1
Infralittoral coarse sediment	2.69	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.7	2.4	6.0	18.0
Circalittoral coarse sediment	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.5	3.2	5.8	12.3	26.2
Infralittoral mixed sediment	2.95	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.9	3.6	15.5
Infralittoral mud	0.24	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	7.5	20.6	34.7	45.4	76.3	90.8
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.49	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	2.0	2.7	3.9	8.5	19.3
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	0.0	0.0	<0.1	1.0	1.9	17.6	32.3	66.8	66.8	100.0
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.02	<0.1	0.4	0.6	1.6	4.6	12.9	24.0	31.4	74.5	100.0
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	<0.1	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	8.4	100.0	100.0	100.0
Infralittoral mud or Infralittoral sand	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Western Baltic Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018
Indicators	0 to 200 m	200 to 800 m	more than 800 m
Average intensity (I-1)	0.72	NA	NA
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.57	NA	NA
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.27	NA	NA
Smallest prop. of area in fished cells with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.20	NA	NA
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.43	NA	NA
Average PD impact (I-6)	0.02	NA	NA
Average L1 impact (I-6)	0.29	NA	NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2 (I-7)	0.99	NA	NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2 (I-7)	0.63	NA	NA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Surface abrasion, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat (1000 km²)	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10⁶ euro	Swept area 1000 km²	Average intensity (I-1)	Prop. of area in fished grid cells (I-2)	Prop. of area fished per year (I-3)	Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)
Infralittoral sand	7.70	990	1.28	1.56	4.14	0.54	0.53	0.20	0.13
Circalittoral mud	1.84	310	1.82	2.09	3.85	2.09	0.90	0.72	0.25
Circalittoral sand	2.03	550	1.26	1.50	2.99	1.47	0.74	0.48	0.17
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.22	70	0.17	0.20	0.63	2.83	0.93	0.85	0.19
Infralittoral mixed sediment	3.18	669	0.21	0.28	0.60	0.19	0.45	0.10	0.12
Infralittoral mud	1.22	361	0.27	0.33	0.52	0.43	0.40	0.18	0.12
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.45	304	0.14	0.19	0.35	0.79	0.80	0.35	0.16
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.21	144	0.10	0.13	0.28	1.33	0.83	0.49	0.24
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.74	240	0.13	0.16	0.26	0.36	0.68	0.20	0.22
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.07	94	0.06	0.07	0.11	1.63	0.76	0.61	0.24
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.05	80	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.73	0.81	0.24	0.16
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.01	16	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.24	0.52	0.22	NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.00	5	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	11	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.00	4	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. Percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km², weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0	<0.005	10.97	0	0.06	2.82	<0.005	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0	<0.005	4.97	0	0.26	0.25	<0.005	0	0	0
Value (10^6 euro)	0	<0.005	6.13	0	0.08	0.36	<0.005	0	0	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	0.3	0.45	NaN	4.31	0.09	0.03	NaN	NaN	NaN
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NaN	1.22	0.56	NaN	1.35	0.13	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10⁶ euro.
	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MI	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	NA	0.018	0.290	NA	2.272	0.171	0.019	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	NA	0.072	0.358	NA	0.710	0.244	0.033	NA	NA	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	NA	0.018	0.018	NA	0.051	0.006	0.000	NA	NA	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	NA	0.074	0.022	NA	0.016	0.009	0.001	NA	NA	NA

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Management scenarios

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.01	0.22	46.97	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	0.18	76.37	91.26	89.95
10	0.01	0.14	82.48	82.78	81.84
15	0.01	0.12	85.95	74.45	71.94
20	0.01	0.10	88.49	66.21	63.63
30	0.01	0.07	92.06	49.34	46.67
40	0.00	0.05	94.63	37.20	34.30
60	0.00	0.03	97.32	22.01	19.04
80	0.00	0.01	99.53	10.15	8.12
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	5.82	4.49

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.05	0.74	9.92	100.00	100.00
5	0.05	0.64	34.84	94.44	93.75
10	0.05	0.57	42.97	89.25	88.39
15	0.05	0.49	51.76	83.58	82.70
20	0.04	0.44	56.29	77.96	76.81
30	0.04	0.36	64.90	66.76	65.63
40	0.03	0.28	72.76	56.30	55.13
60	0.02	0.16	85.18	36.14	35.68
80	0.01	0.07	94.23	18.98	19.38
99	0.00	0.01	100.00	3.11	3.52

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.04	0.49	26.41	100.00	100.00
5	0.04	0.40	55.99	94.40	93.43
10	0.03	0.35	62.86	88.91	86.67
15	0.03	0.30	68.33	83.19	80.92
20	0.03	0.26	72.06	78.08	75.80
30	0.03	0.21	78.73	68.25	65.90
40	0.02	0.15	84.47	59.53	56.42
60	0.02	0.08	92.29	41.36	37.22
80	0.01	0.03	97.58	19.30	17.39
99	0.00	0.01	100.00	5.56	3.48

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings
Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0.07	0.87	6.62	100.00	100.00
5	0.07	0.77	23.30	93.43	92.84
10	0.06	0.64	36.99	88.97	88.55
15	0.06	0.60	41.36	84.65	84.29
20	0.06	0.54	51.69	78.95	78.59
30	0.05	0.43	60.10	68.40	68.51
40	0.04	0.40	64.10	60.18	60.52
60	0.03	0.28	79.80	43.93	44.67
80	0.02	0.13	93.67	25.04	25.85
99	0.01	0.06	100.00	14.45	14.95

Overview all MSFD habitats

Fishing effort consequences, as a % relative to total swept area, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Infralittoral sand	7.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.4	2.2	7.7	24.4
Circalittoral mud	1.84	0.0	<0.1	0.6	3.5	8.9	14.0	25.6	37.6	53.3	70.6
Circalittoral sand	2.03	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.4	2.4	7.3	17.5	32.4	55.4
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.22	0.0	0.4	3.8	8.2	13.7	23.7	37.3	53.8	73.9	85.3
Infralittoral mixed sediment	3.18	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.2	3.9	16.8
Infralittoral mud	1.22	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.7	6.4	28.7
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.45	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.2	0.8	1.5	5.6	15.3	26.7	63.4
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.21	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.4	2.5	6.8	12.8	21.9	36.9	56.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.74	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	1.9	4.4	8.1	17.0	34.9
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.07	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	4.5	9.9	17.5	29.7	46.9	76.2
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.05	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.4	0.4	0.6	1.3	3.8	12.2	40.4
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4.6	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing value consequences, as a % relative to total value, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Infralittoral sand	7.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.9	3.9	13.4	40.5
Circalittoral mud	1.84	0.0	<0.1	0.6	4.0	9.5	15.9	28.3	42.0	58.2	75.2
Circalittoral sand	2.03	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.4	2.5	8.6	19.7	33.6	54.9
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.22	0.0	0.6	5.6	10.0	15.4	25.8	39.8	56.1	75.0	85.5
Infralittoral mixed sediment	3.18	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.3	3.9	15.6
Infralittoral mud	1.22	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.6	6.0	30.8
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.45	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.2	0.7	1.3	4.7	12.9	24.6	56.0
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.21	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.3	2.7	6.6	12.3	22.5	37.6	55.5
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.74	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.3	3.1	6.6	12.4	29.5	55.1
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.07	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.7	5.0	11.7	21.1	37.9	58.6	81.4
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.05	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.3	0.3	0.5	1.0	2.8	10.0	37.9
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	5.3	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Fishing weight consequences, as a % relative to total weight, of protecting a certain fraction of each broad habitat type sorted from low to high fished c-squares
MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km²	0.05	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
Infralittoral sand	7.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	1.4	4.7	14.6	43.4
Circalittoral mud	1.84	0.0	<0.1	1.1	4.6	10.5	16.8	29.8	43.3	58.9	75.3
Circalittoral sand	2.03	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.6	3.3	10.7	21.9	36.5	59.4
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.22	0.0	1.2	6.2	10.5	15.7	25.8	39.5	55.3	74.1	85.1
Infralittoral mixed sediment	3.18	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	2.5	7.5	19.5
Infralittoral mud	1.22	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.7	6.5	31.8
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.45	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.4	0.9	1.8	6.3	14.2	26.4	56.3
Offshore circalittoral sand	0.21	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.3	4.4	8.8	18.3	38.4	53.6	67.0
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.74	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.1	3.1	6.7	14.2	30.3	55.1
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.07	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6	5.7	12.0	20.8	37.1	59.5	81.1
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.05	0.0	0.0	<0.1	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.6	5.0	15.8	44.4
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.01	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	6.2	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.05	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN	NaN

Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0	0	100	NA	NA
5	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
10	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
15	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
20	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
30	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
40	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
60	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
80	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
99	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0	0	100	NA	NA
5	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
10	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
15	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
20	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
30	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
40	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
60	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
80	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
99	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Baltic Sea

WKTRADE 3

Baltic Sea

Summary

Table 1

Figure 1

Pressure

Figure 2

Table 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Core fishing grounds

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Fishing by métier

Table 3

Impact

Figure 8

Figure 9

Table 4

Figure 10

Management scenarios

MSFD habitat - 1

MSFD habitat - 2

MSFD habitat - 3

MSFD habitat - 4

Overview all MSFD habitats

Bothnian area

Summary

Table 1

Figure 1

Pressure

Figure 2

Table 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Core fishing grounds

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Fishing by métier

Table 3

Impact

Figure 8

Figure 9

Table 4

Figure 10

Management scenarios

MSFD habitat - 1

MSFD habitat - 2

MSFD habitat - 3

MSFD habitat - 4

Overview all MSFD habitats

Gulf of Finland

Summary

Table 1

Figure 1

Pressure

Figure 2

Table 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Core fishing grounds

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Fishing by métier

Table 3

Impact

Figure 8

Figure 9

Table 4

Figure 10

Management scenarios

MSFD habitat - 1

MSFD habitat - 2

MSFD habitat - 3

MSFD habitat - 4

Overview all MSFD habitats

Effort reduction (%)	Average PD impact	Average L1 impact	Area unfished (%)	Value (%)	Weight (%)
0	0	0	100	NA	NA
5	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
10	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
15	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
20	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
30	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
40	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
60	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
80	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
99	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA